An Overdose of the Arabidopsis Coreceptor BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE1-ASSOCIATED RECEPTOR KINASE1 or Its Ectodomain Causes Autoimmunity in a SUPPRESSOR OF BIR1-1-Dependent Manner

The membrane-bound BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE1-ASSOCIATED RECEPTOR KINASE1 (BAK1) is a common coreceptor in plants and regulates distinct cellular programs ranging from growth and development to defense against pathogens. BAK1 functions through binding to ligand-stimulated transmembrane receptors and activating their kinase domains via transphosphorylation. In the absence of microbes, BAK1 activity may be suppressed by different mechanisms, like interaction with the regulatory BIR (for BAK1-INTERACTING RECEPTOR-LIKE KINASE) proteins. Here, we demonstrated that BAK1 overexpression in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) could cause detrimental effects on plant development, including growth arrest, leaf necrosis, and reduced seed production. Further analysis using an inducible expression system showed that BAK1 accumulation quickly stimulated immune responses, even under axenic conditions, and led to increased resistance to pathogenic Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato DC3000. Intriguingly, our study also revealed that the plasma membrane-associated BAK1 ectodomain was sufficient to induce autoimmunity, indicating a novel mode of action for BAK1 in immunity control. We postulate that an excess of BAK1 or its ectodomain could trigger immune receptor activation in the absence of microbes through unbalancing regulatory interactions, including those with BIRs. Consistently, mutation of SUPPRESSOR OF BIR1-1, which encodes an emerging positive regulator of transmembrane receptors in plants, suppressed the effects of BAK1 overexpression. In conclusion, our findings unravel a new role for the BAK1 ectodomain in the tight regulation of Arabidopsis immune receptors necessary to avoid inappropriate activation of immunity.Plants rely on their innate immune system to detect microbes and mount an active defense against pathogens. The plant immune system is traditionally considered to be composed of two layers (Jones and Dangl, 2006). The first one is based on the activity of pattern-recognition receptors (PRRs) that can detect microbe-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs) and trigger what is termed pattern-triggered immunity (PTI; Boller and Felix, 2009). Many plant pathogens can suppress this basal defense response using virulence factors termed effectors. In a second layer of defense, plants can make use of resistance (R) proteins to recognize the presence of pathogen effectors resulting in effector-triggered immunity (ETI), which resembles an accelerated and amplified PTI response (Jones and Dangl, 2006).Plants utilize plasma membrane-associated receptor-like proteins (RLPs) or receptor-like kinases (RLKs) as PRRs to sense specific signals through their ectodomains (Böhm et al., 2014). RLPs and RLKs require the function of additional RLKs to form active receptor complexes and transfer the external signal to the inside of the cells (Zhang and Thomma, 2013; Cao et al., 2014; Liebrand et al., 2014). The best-known coreceptor is the leucine-rich repeat (LRR)-RLK BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE1-ASSOCIATED RECEPTOR KINASE1 (BAK1), which was originally identified as a positive regulator and partner for the brassinosteroid (BR) receptor BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE1 (BRI1; Li et al., 2002; Nam and Li, 2002). BRs refer to phytohormones that promote plant growth and development (Fujioka and Yokota, 2003). Thus, loss-of-function mutations in BAK1 negatively impact Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) growth due to improper cell elongation. In short, bak1 mutants display compact rosettes with round-shaped leaves and shorter petioles and phenocopy weak bri1 mutations (Li et al., 2002; Nam and Li, 2002). Conversely, certain mutants affected in the BAK1 ectodomain show increased activity in the BR signaling pathway and share phenotypic similarities with BRI1-overexpressing lines (Wang et al., 2001), including elongated hypocotyls, petioles, and leaf blades and an overall increase in height (Jaillais et al., 2011; Chung et al., 2012).Furthermore, BAK1 is involved in the containment of cell death, independently of its function in BR signaling. Arabidopsis bak1 knockout mutants exhibit extensive cell death spreading after microbial infection (Kemmerling et al., 2007). In addition, spontaneous cell death develops in Arabidopsis double mutant plants lacking both BAK1 (also named SOMATIC EMBRYOGENESIS RECEPTOR KINASE3 [SERK3]) and its closest homolog BAK1-LIKE1 (BKK1)/SERK4, causing seedling lethality even in the absence of microbes (He et al., 2007). Similar phenotypes are observed in Arabidopsis, rice (Oryza sativa), and Nicotiana benthamiana by lowering the expression of BAK1 and its homologs (Heese et al., 2007; Jeong et al., 2010; Park et al., 2011). Interestingly, typical defense responses, like the production of reactive oxygen species and constitutive callose deposition, are also detected in those plants, although the basis for this phenomenon remains poorly understood (He et al., 2007; Kemmerling et al., 2007; Park et al., 2011; Gao et al., 2013).On the other hand, BAK1 is widely studied as a key component of immune signaling pathways due to its known association with different PRRs, including RLKs and RLPs (Kim et al., 2013; Böhm et al., 2014). Upon MAMP perception, PRRs induce signaling and physiological defense responses like mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activation, reactive oxygen species and ethylene production, and modifications in gene expression, all of which contribute to PTI. Among the best-studied examples of BAK1-regulated PRRs are two LRR-receptor kinases, ELONGATION FACTOR Tu RECEPTOR (EFR), which senses the active epitope elf18 of the bacterial elongation factor Tu, and the flagellin receptor FLAGELLIN SENSING2 (FLS2), which senses the active epitope flg22 of bacterial flagellin (Gómez-Gómez and Boller, 2000; Chinchilla et al., 2006; Zipfel et al., 2006). Immediately after flg22 binding to its LRR ectodomain, FLS2 forms a tight complex with BAK1 (Chinchilla et al., 2007; Sun et al., 2013). This heteromerization step may bring the two kinase domains closer and thereby induce, within seconds, the phosphorylation of BAK1 and FLS2 (Schulze et al., 2010; Schwessinger et al., 2011). These steps are sufficient to initiate the immune signaling pathway, even if the ectodomains and kinase domains are switched between FLS2 and BAK1 (Albert et al., 2013).While PRRs, such as FLS2 and EFR, are extremely sensitive to even subnanomolar concentrations of their ligands, a tight control of these receptors is expected, since constitutive activation of defense responses in plants dramatically impairs fitness and growth (Tian et al., 2003; Korves and Bergelson, 2004). However, the mechanisms that underlie the attenuation of PRR activation or prevent these receptors from signaling constitutively remain largely unknown (Macho and Zipfel, 2014). Several independent observations indicate that BAK1 and FLS2 are present in close spatial proximity in preformed complexes at the plasma membrane (Chinchilla et al., 2007; Schulze et al., 2010; Roux et al., 2011). Negative regulation of immune signaling prior to ligand perception could happen within the PRR complex and depend on conformational changes following the association of FLS2 with flg22 (Meindl et al., 2000; Schulze et al., 2010; Mueller et al., 2012). Additionally, other partners might prevent the constitutive interaction of BAK1 with FLS2. Such could be the case for the LRR-RLK BAK1-INTERACTING RECEPTOR-LIKE KINASEs (BIRs): BIR2 was recently discovered as a substrate and negative regulator for BAK1, while the absence of BIR1 leads to the activation of defense induction and strong dwarfism (Gao et al., 2009; Halter et al., 2014b). Furthermore, MAMP signaling may be constrained by phosphatases, as suggested in earlier studies (Felix et al., 1994; Gómez-Gómez et al., 2001) and recently shown for the protein phosphatase 2A, which controls PRR activation likely by modulating the BAK1 phosphostatus (Segonzac et al., 2014). These examples illustrate the variety of mechanisms that may tightly control BAK1 activity.In this work, we show that regulation of BAK1 accumulation is crucial for Arabidopsis fitness, as its overexpression leads to dwarfism and premature death. The phenotype differs from BR mutants and is very reminiscent of or even identical to the autoimmune phenotype of plants showing constitutive activation of R proteins (Oldroyd and Staskawicz, 1998; Bendahmane et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2003). BAK1 overexpression is associated with constitutive activation of defense pathway(s) involving the general coregulator of RLPs, SUPPRESSOR OF BIR1-1 (SOBIR1; Liebrand et al., 2013, 2014). To our knowledge, this is the first report and comprehensive characterization of such an autoimmunity phenotype for Arabidopsis plants overexpressing BAK1, and it highlights the importance of the regulation of PTI overactivation.     

HAPLESS13, the Arabidopsis μ1 Adaptin,Is Essential for Protein Sorting at the trans-Golgi Network/Early Endosome

In plant cells, secretory and endocytic routes intersect at the trans-Golgi network (TGN)/early endosome (EE), where cargos are further sorted correctly and in a timely manner. Cargo sorting is essential for plant survival and therefore necessitates complex molecular machinery. Adaptor proteins (APs) play key roles in this process by recruiting coat proteins and selecting cargos for different vesicle carriers. The µ1 subunit of AP-1 in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) was recently identified at the TGN/EE and shown to be essential for cytokinesis. However, little was known about other cellular activities affected by mutations in AP-1 or the developmental consequences of such mutations. We report here that HAPLESS13 (HAP13), the Arabidopsis µ1 adaptin, is essential for protein sorting at the TGN/EE. Functional loss of HAP13 displayed pleiotropic developmental defects, some of which were suggestive of disrupted auxin signaling. Consistent with this, the asymmetric localization of PIN-FORMED2 (PIN2), an auxin transporter, was compromised in the mutant. In addition, cell morphogenesis was disrupted. We further demonstrate that HAP13 is critical for brefeldin A-sensitive but wortmannin-insensitive post-Golgi trafficking. Our results show that HAP13 is a key link in the sophisticated trafficking network in plant cells.Plant cells contain sophisticated endomembrane compartments, including the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi, the trans-Golgi network (TGN)/early endosome (EE), the prevacuolar compartments/multivesicular bodies (PVC/MVB), various types of vesicles, and the plasma membrane (PM; Ebine and Ueda, 2009; Richter et al., 2009). Intracellular protein sorting between the various locations in the endomembrane system occurs in both secretory and endocytic routes (Richter et al., 2009; De Marcos Lousa et al., 2012). Vesicles in the secretory route start at the endoplasmic reticulum, passing through the Golgi before reaching the TGN/EE, while vesicles in the endocytic route start from the PM before reaching the TGN/EE (Dhonukshe et al., 2007; Viotti et al., 2010). The TGN/EE in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) is an independent and highly dynamic organelle transiently associated with the Golgi (Dettmer et al., 2006; Lam et al., 2007; Viotti et al., 2010), distinct from the animal TGN. Once reaching the TGN/EE, proteins delivered by their vesicle carriers are subject to further sorting, being incorporated either into vesicles that pass through the PVC/MVB before reaching the vacuole for degradation or into vesicles that enter the secretory pathway for delivery to the PM (Ebine and Ueda, 2009; Richter et al., 2009). Therefore, the TGN/EE is a critical sorting compartment that lies at the intersection of the secretory and endocytic routes.Fine-tuned control of intracellular protein sorting at the TGN/EE is essential for plant development (Geldner et al., 2003; Dhonukshe et al., 2007, 2008; Richter et al., 2007; Kitakura et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2013). An auxin gradient is crucial for pattern formation in plants, whose dynamic maintenance requires the polar localization of auxin efflux carrier PINs through endocytic recycling (Geldner et al., 2003; Blilou et al., 2005; Paciorek et al., 2005; Abas et al., 2006; Jaillais et al., 2006; Dhonukshe et al., 2007; Kleine-Vehn et al., 2008). Receptor-like kinases (RLKs) have also been recognized as major cargos undergoing endocytic trafficking, which are either recycled back to the PM or sent for vacuolar degradation (Geldner and Robatzek, 2008; Irani and Russinova, 2009). RLKs are involved in most if not all developmental processes of plants (De Smet et al., 2009).Intracellular protein sorting relies on sorting signals within cargo proteins and on the molecular machinery that recognizes sorting signals (Boehm and Bonifacino, 2001; Robinson, 2004; Dhonukshe et al., 2007). Adaptor proteins (AP) play a key role (Boehm and Bonifacino, 2001; Robinson, 2004) in the recognition of sorting signals. APs are heterotetrameric protein complexes composed of two large subunits (β and γ/α/δ/ε), a small subunit (σ), and a medium subunit (µ) that is crucial for cargo selection (Boehm and Bonifacino, 2001). APs associate with the cytoplasmic side of secretory and endocytic vesicles, recruiting coat proteins and recognizing sorting signals within cargo proteins for their incorporation into vesicle carriers (Boehm and Bonifacino, 2001). Five APs have been identified so far, classified by their components, subcellular localization, and function (Boehm and Bonifacino, 2001; Robinson, 2004; Hirst et al., 2011). Of the five APs, AP-1 associates with the TGN or recycling endosomes (RE) in yeast and mammals (Huang et al., 2001; Robinson, 2004), mediating the sorting of cargo proteins to compartments of the endosomal-lysosomal system or to the basolateral PM of polarized epithelial cells (Gonzalez and Rodriguez-Boulan, 2009). Knockouts of AP-1 components in multicellular organisms resulted in embryonic lethality (Boehm and Bonifacino, 2001; Robinson, 2004).We show here that the recently identified Arabidopsis µ1 adaptin AP1M2 (Park et al., 2013; Teh et al., 2013) is a key component in the cellular machinery mediating intracellular protein sorting at the TGN/EE. AP1M2 was previously named HAPLESS13 (HAP13), whose mutant allele hap13 showed male gametophytic lethality (Johnson et al., 2004). In recent quests for AP-1 in plants, HAP13/AP1M2 was confirmed as the Arabidopsis µ1 adaptin based on its interaction with other components of the AP-1 complex as well as its localization at the TGN (Park et al., 2013; Teh et al., 2013). A novel mutant allele of HAP13/AP1M2, ap1m2-1, was found to be defective in the intracellular distribution of KNOLLE, leading to defective cytokinesis (Park et al., 2013; Teh et al., 2013). However, it was not clear whether HAP13/AP1M2 mediated other cellular activities and their developmental consequences. Using the same mutant allele, we found that functional loss of HAP13 (hap13-1/ap1m2-1) resulted in a full spectrum of growth defects, suggestive of compromised auxin signaling and of defective RLK signaling. Cell morphogenesis was also disturbed in hap13-1. Importantly, hap13-1 was insensitive to brefeldin A (BFA) washout, indicative of defects in guanine nucleotide exchange factors for ADP-ribosylation factor (ArfGEF)-mediated post-Golgi trafficking. Furthermore, HAP13/AP1M2 showed evolutionarily conserved function during vacuolar fusion, providing additional support to its identity as a µ1 adaptin. These results demonstrate the importance of the Arabidopsis µ1 adaptin for intracellular protein sorting centered on the TGN/EE.     

Spore Density Determines Infection Strategy by the Plant Pathogenic Fungus Plectosphaerella cucumerina

Necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens are resisted by different plant defenses. While necrotrophic pathogens are sensitive to jasmonic acid (JA)-dependent resistance, biotrophic pathogens are resisted by salicylic acid (SA)- and reactive oxygen species (ROS)-dependent resistance. Although many pathogens switch from biotrophy to necrotrophy during infection, little is known about the signals triggering this transition. This study is based on the observation that the early colonization pattern and symptom development by the ascomycete pathogen Plectosphaerella cucumerina (P. cucumerina) vary between inoculation methods. Using the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) defense response as a proxy for infection strategy, we examined whether P. cucumerina alternates between hemibiotrophic and necrotrophic lifestyles, depending on initial spore density and distribution on the leaf surface. Untargeted metabolome analysis revealed profound differences in metabolic defense signatures upon different inoculation methods. Quantification of JA and SA, marker gene expression, and cell death confirmed that infection from high spore densities activates JA-dependent defenses with excessive cell death, while infection from low spore densities induces SA-dependent defenses with lower levels of cell death. Phenotyping of Arabidopsis mutants in JA, SA, and ROS signaling confirmed that P. cucumerina is differentially resisted by JA- and SA/ROS-dependent defenses, depending on initial spore density and distribution on the leaf. Furthermore, in situ staining for early callose deposition at the infection sites revealed that necrotrophy by P. cucumerina is associated with elevated host defense. We conclude that P. cucumerina adapts to early-acting plant defenses by switching from a hemibiotrophic to a necrotrophic infection program, thereby gaining an advantage of immunity-related cell death in the host.Plant pathogens are often classified as necrotrophic or biotrophic, depending on their infection strategy (Glazebrook, 2005; Nishimura and Dangl, 2010). Necrotrophic pathogens kill living host cells and use the decayed plant tissue as a substrate to colonize the plant, whereas biotrophic pathogens parasitize living plant cells by employing effector molecules that suppress the host immune system (Pel and Pieterse, 2013). Despite this binary classification, the majority of pathogenic microbes employ a hemibiotrophic infection strategy, which is characterized by an initial biotrophic phase followed by a necrotrophic infection strategy at later stages of infection (Perfect and Green, 2001). The pathogenic fungi Magnaporthe grisea, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, and Mycosphaerella graminicola, the oomycete Phytophthora infestans, and the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae are examples of hemibiotrophic plant pathogens (Perfect and Green, 2001; Koeck et al., 2011; van Kan et al., 2014; Kabbage et al., 2015).Despite considerable progress in our understanding of plant resistance to necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens (Glazebrook, 2005; Mengiste, 2012; Lai and Mengiste, 2013), recent debate highlights the dynamic and complex interplay between plant-pathogenic microbes and their hosts, which is raising concerns about the use of infection strategies as a static tool to classify plant pathogens. For instance, the fungal genus Botrytis is often labeled as an archetypal necrotroph, even though there is evidence that it can behave as an endophytic fungus with a biotrophic lifestyle (van Kan et al., 2014). The rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae, which is often classified as a hemibiotrophic leaf pathogen (Perfect and Green, 2001; Koeck et al., 2011), can adopt a purely biotrophic lifestyle when infecting root tissues (Marcel et al., 2010). It remains unclear which signals are responsible for the switch from biotrophy to necrotrophy and whether these signals rely solely on the physiological state of the pathogen, or whether host-derived signals play a role as well (Kabbage et al., 2015).The plant hormones salicylic acid (SA) and jasmonic acid (JA) play a central role in the activation of plant defenses (Glazebrook, 2005; Pieterse et al., 2009, 2012). The first evidence that biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens are resisted by different immune responses came from Thomma et al. (1998), who demonstrated that Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) genotypes impaired in SA signaling show enhanced susceptibility to the biotrophic pathogen Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis (formerly known as Peronospora parastitica), while JA-insensitive genotypes were more susceptible to the necrotrophic fungus Alternaria brassicicola. In subsequent years, the differential effectiveness of SA- and JA-dependent defense mechanisms has been confirmed in different plant-pathogen interactions, while additional plant hormones, such as ethylene, abscisic acid (ABA), auxins, and cytokinins, have emerged as regulators of SA- and JA-dependent defenses (Bari and Jones, 2009; Cao et al., 2011; Pieterse et al., 2012). Moreover, SA- and JA-dependent defense pathways have been shown to act antagonistically on each other, which allows plants to prioritize an appropriate defense response to attack by biotrophic pathogens, necrotrophic pathogens, or herbivores (Koornneef and Pieterse, 2008; Pieterse et al., 2009; Verhage et al., 2010).In addition to plant hormones, reactive oxygen species (ROS) play an important regulatory role in plant defenses (Torres et al., 2006; Lehmann et al., 2015). Within minutes after the perception of pathogen-associated molecular patterns, NADPH oxidases and apoplastic peroxidases generate early ROS bursts (Torres et al., 2002; Daudi et al., 2012; O’Brien et al., 2012), which activate downstream defense signaling cascades (Apel and Hirt, 2004; Torres et al., 2006; Miller et al., 2009; Mittler et al., 2011; Lehmann et al., 2015). ROS play an important regulatory role in the deposition of callose (Luna et al., 2011; Pastor et al., 2013) and can also stimulate SA-dependent defenses (Chaouch et al., 2010; Yun and Chen, 2011; Wang et al., 2014; Mammarella et al., 2015). However, the spread of SA-induced apoptosis during hyperstimulation of the plant immune system is contained by the ROS-generating NADPH oxidase RBOHD (Torres et al., 2005), presumably to allow for the sufficient generation of SA-dependent defense signals from living cells that are adjacent to apoptotic cells. Nitric oxide (NO) plays an additional role in the regulation of SA/ROS-dependent defense (Trapet et al., 2015). This gaseous molecule can stimulate ROS production and cell death in the absence of SA while preventing excessive ROS production at high cellular SA levels via S-nitrosylation of RBOHD (Yun et al., 2011). Recently, it was shown that pathogen-induced accumulation of NO and ROS promotes the production of azelaic acid, a lipid derivative that primes distal plants for SA-dependent defenses (Wang et al., 2014). Hence, NO, ROS, and SA are intertwined in a complex regulatory network to mount local and systemic resistance against biotrophic pathogens. Interestingly, pathogens with a necrotrophic lifestyle can benefit from ROS/SA-dependent defenses and associated cell death (Govrin and Levine, 2000). For instance, Kabbage et al. (2013) demonstrated that S. sclerotiorum utilizes oxalic acid to repress oxidative defense signaling during initial biotrophic colonization, but it stimulates apoptosis at later stages to advance necrotrophic colonization. Moreover, SA-induced repression of JA-dependent resistance not only benefits necrotrophic pathogens but also hemibiotrophic pathogens after having switched from biotrophy to necrotrophy (Glazebrook, 2005; Pieterse et al., 2009, 2012).Plectosphaerella cucumerina ((P. cucumerina, anamorph Plectosporum tabacinum) anamorph Plectosporum tabacinum) is a filamentous ascomycete fungus that can survive saprophytically in soil by decomposing plant material (Palm et al., 1995). The fungus can cause sudden death and blight disease in a variety of crops (Chen et al., 1999; Harrington et al., 2000). Because P. cucumerina can infect Arabidopsis leaves, the P. cucumerina-Arabidopsis interaction has emerged as a popular model system in which to study plant defense reactions to necrotrophic fungi (Berrocal-Lobo et al., 2002; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Carlucci et al., 2012; Ramos et al., 2013). Various studies have shown that Arabidopsis deploys a wide range of inducible defense strategies against P. cucumerina, including JA-, SA-, ABA-, and auxin-dependent defenses, glucosinolates (Tierens et al., 2001; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Gamir et al., 2014; Pastor et al., 2014), callose deposition (García-Andrade et al., 2011; Gamir et al., 2012, 2014; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2012), and ROS (Tierens et al., 2002; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Barna et al., 2012; Gamir et al., 2012, 2014; Pastor et al., 2014). Recent metabolomics studies have revealed large-scale metabolic changes in P. cucumerina-infected Arabidopsis, presumably to mobilize chemical defenses (Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2010; Gamir et al., 2014; Pastor et al., 2014). Furthermore, various chemical agents have been reported to induce resistance against P. cucumerina. These chemicals include β-amino-butyric acid, which primes callose deposition and SA-dependent defenses, benzothiadiazole (BTH or Bion; Görlach et al., 1996; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004), which activates SA-related defenses (Lawton et al., 1996; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Gamir et al., 2014; Luna et al., 2014), JA (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004), and ABA, which primes ROS and callose deposition (Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Pastor et al., 2013). However, among all these studies, there is increasing controversy about the exact signaling pathways and defense responses contributing to plant resistance against P. cucumerina. While it is clear that JA and ethylene contribute to basal resistance against the fungus, the exact roles of SA, ABA, and ROS in P. cucumerina resistance vary between studies (Thomma et al., 1998; Ton and Mauch-Mani, 2004; Sánchez-Vallet et al., 2012; Gamir et al., 2014).This study is based on the observation that the disease phenotype during P. cucumerina infection differs according to the inoculation method used. We provide evidence that the fungus follows a hemibiotrophic infection strategy when infecting from relatively low spore densities on the leaf surface. By contrast, when challenged by localized host defense to relatively high spore densities, the fungus switches to a necrotrophic infection program. Our study has uncovered a novel strategy by which plant-pathogenic fungi can take advantage of the early immune response in the host plant.     

Evolutionary Dynamics of the Leucine-Rich Repeat Receptor-Like Kinase (LRR-RLK) Subfamily in Angiosperms

Gene duplications are an important factor in plant evolution, and lineage-specific expanded (LSE) genes are of particular interest. Receptor-like kinases expanded massively in land plants, and leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinases (LRR-RLK) constitute the largest receptor-like kinases family. Based on the phylogeny of 7,554 LRR-RLK genes from 31 fully sequenced flowering plant genomes, the complex evolutionary dynamics of this family was characterized in depth. We studied the involvement of selection during the expansion of this family among angiosperms. LRR-RLK subgroups harbor extremely contrasting rates of duplication, retention, or loss, and LSE copies are predominantly found in subgroups involved in environmental interactions. Expansion rates also differ significantly depending on the time when rounds of expansion or loss occurred on the angiosperm phylogenetic tree. Finally, using a d_N/d_S-based test in a phylogenetic framework, we searched for selection footprints on LSE and single-copy LRR-RLK genes. Selective constraint appeared to be globally relaxed at LSE genes, and codons under positive selection were detected in 50% of them. Moreover, the leucine-rich repeat domains, and specifically four amino acids in them, were found to be the main targets of positive selection. Here, we provide an extensive overview of the expansion and evolution of this very large gene family.Receptor-like kinases (RLKs) constitute one of the largest gene families in plants and expanded massively in land plants (Embryophyta; Lehti-Shiu et al., 2009, 2012). For plant RLK gene families, the functions of most members are often not known (especially in recently expanded families), but some described functions include innate immunity (Albert et al., 2010), pathogen response (Dodds and Rathjen, 2010), abiotic stress (Yang et al., 2010), development (De Smet et al., 2009), and sometimes multiple functions (Lehti-Shiu et al., 2012). The RLKs usually consist of three domains: an N-terminal extracellular domain, a transmembrane domain, and a C-terminal kinase domain (KD). In plants, the KD usually has a Ser/Thr specificity (Shiu and Bleecker, 2001), but Tyr-specific RLKs were also described (e.g. BRASSINOSTEROID INSENSITIVE1; Oh et al., 2009). Interestingly, it was estimated that approximately 20% of RLKs contain a catalytically inactive KD (e.g. STRUBBELIG and CORYNE; Chevalier et al., 2005; Castells and Casacuberta, 2007; Gish and Clark, 2011). In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), 44 RLK subgroups (SGs) were defined by inferring the phylogenetic relationships between the KDs (Shiu and Bleecker, 2001). Interestingly, different SGs show different duplication/retention rates (Lehti-Shiu et al., 2009). Specifically, RLKs involved in stress responses show a high number of tandemly duplicated genes whereas those involved in development do not (Shiu et al., 2004), which suggests that some RLK genes are important for the responses of land plants to a changing environment (Lehti-Shiu et al., 2012). There seem to be relatively few RLK pseudogenes compared with other large gene families, and copy retention was argued to be driven by both drift and selection (Zou et al., 2009; Lehti-Shiu et al., 2012). As most SGs are relatively old and RLK subfamilies expanded independently in several plant lineages, duplicate retention cannot be explained by drift alone, and natural selection is expected to be an important driving factor in RLK gene family retention (Lehti-Shiu et al., 2009).Leucine-rich repeat-receptor-like kinases (LRR-RLKs), which contain up to 30 leucine-rich repeat (LRRs) in their extracellular domain, constitute the largest RLK family (Shiu and Bleecker, 2001). Based on the KD, 15 LRR-RLK SGs have been established in Arabidopsis (Shiu et al., 2004; Lehti-Shiu et al., 2009). So far, two major functions have been attributed to them: defense against pathogens and development (Tang et al., 2010b). LRR-RLKs involved in defense are predominantly found in lineage-specific expanded (LSE) gene clusters, whereas LRR-RLKs involved in development are mostly found in nonexpanded groups (Tang et al., 2010b). It was also discovered that the LRR domains are significantly less conserved than the remaining domains of the LRR-RLK genes (Tang et al., 2010b). In addition, a study of four plant genomes (Arabidopsis, grape [Vitis vinifera], poplar [Populus trichocarpa], and rice [Oryza sativa]) showed that LRR-RLK genes from LSE gene clusters show significantly more indications of positive selection or relaxed constraint than LRR-RLKs from nonexpanded groups (Tang et al., 2010b).The genomes of flowering plants (angiosperms) have been shown to be highly dynamic compared with most other groups of land plants (Leitch and Leitch, 2012). This dynamic is mostly caused by the frequent multiplication of genetic material, followed by a complex pattern of differential losses (i.e. the fragmentation process) and chromosomal rearrangements (Langham et al., 2004; Leitch and Leitch, 2012). Most angiosperm genomes sequenced so far show evidence for at least one whole-genome multiplication event during their evolution (Jaillon et al., 2007; D’Hont et al., 2012; Tomato Genome Consortium, 2012). At a smaller scale, tandem and segmental duplications are also very common in angiosperms (Arabidopsis Genome Initiative, 2000; International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, 2005; Rizzon et al., 2006). Although the most common fate of duplicated genes is to be progressively lost, in some cases they can be retained in the genome, and adaptive as well as nonadaptive scenarios have been discussed to play a role in this preservation process (for review, see Moore and Purugganan, 2005; Hahn, 2009; Innan, 2009; Innan and Kondrashov, 2010). Whole-genome sequences also revealed that the same gene may undergo several rounds of duplication and retention. These LSE genes were shown to evolve under positive selection more frequently than single-copy genes in angiosperms (Fischer et al., 2014). That study analyzed general trends over whole genomes. Here, we ask if, and to what extent, this trend is observable at LRR-RLK genes. As this gene family is very dynamic and large, and in accordance with the results of Tang et al. (2010b), we expect the effect of positive selection to be even more pronounced than in the whole-genome average.We analyzed 33 Embryophyta genomes to investigate the evolutionary history of the LRR-RLK gene family in a phylogenetic framework. Twenty LRR-RLK SGs were identified, and from this data set, we deciphered the evolutionary dynamics of this family within angiosperms. The expansion/reduction rates were contrasted between SGs and species as well as in ancestral branches of the angiosperm phylogeny. We then focused on genes whose number increased dramatically in an SG- and/or species-specific manner (i.e. LSE genes). Those genes are likely to be involved in species-specific cellular processes or adaptive interactions and were used as a template to infer the potential occurrence of positive selection. This led to the identification of sites at which positive selection likely acted. We discuss our results in the light of angiosperm genome evolution and current knowledge of LRR-RLK functions. Positive selection footprints identified in LSE genes highlight the importance of combining evolutionary analysis and functional knowledge to guide further investigations.     

AtGEN1 and AtSEND1, Two Paralogs in Arabidopsis,Possess Holliday Junction Resolvase Activity

Holliday junctions (HJs) are physical links between homologous DNA molecules that arise as central intermediary structures during homologous recombination and repair in meiotic and somatic cells. It is necessary for these structures to be resolved to ensure correct chromosome segregation and other functions. In eukaryotes, including plants, homologs of a gene called XPG-like endonuclease1 (GEN1) have been identified that process HJs in a manner analogous to the HJ resolvases of phages, archaea, and bacteria. Here, we report that Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), a eukaryotic organism, has two functional GEN1 homologs instead of one. Like all known eukaryotic resolvases, AtGEN1 and Arabidopsis single-strand DNA endonuclease1 both belong to class IV of the Rad2/XPG family of nucleases. Their resolvase activity shares the characteristics of the Escherichia coli radiation and UV sensitive C paradigm for resolvases, which involves resolving HJs by symmetrically oriented incisions in two opposing strands. This leads to ligatable products without the need for further processing. The observation that the sequence context influences the cleavage by the enzymes can be interpreted as a hint for the existence of sequence specificity. The two Arabidopsis paralogs differ in their preferred sequences. The precise cleavage positions observed for the resolution of mobile nicked HJs suggest that these cleavage positions are determined by both the substrate structure and the sequence context at the junction point.To counter the effects of endogenous and exogenous factors that threaten the genome integrity, efficient mechanisms have evolved to ensure the faithful transmission of genetic information (Tuteja et al., 2001). Double-strand breaks, induced by conditions such as ionizing radiation or replication fork (RF) stalling, are among the most deleterious lesions (Jackson and Bartek, 2009). To protect the genome from consequences of these lesions, the cells have ancient double-strand break repair mechanisms, including the homologous recombination (HR) pathway. The HR mechanism is also of great importance in the intentional genetic recombination during sexual reproduction. A key intermediate in HR is the so-called Holliday junction (HJ), a structure that was first suggested in the context of a gene conversion model in fungi (Holliday, 1964) and later shown to arise in somatic and meiotic cells (Szostak et al., 1983; Schwacha and Kleckner, 1995; Cromie et al., 2006; Bzymek et al., 2010).HJs are structures consisting of four DNA strands of two homologous DNA helices (e.g. homologous chromosomes or sister chromatids). They arise through invasion of one single strand from each of two helices into the other double strand. This results in two continuous strands (one per helix) and two strands that cross from one helix into the other. Schematics often depict the HJs with a parallel orientation of the helices, in which the crossing strands cross each other as was originally postulated (Holliday, 1964). However, HJs based on oligonucleotides have been shown to adopt an antiparallel conformation (for review, see Lilley, 2000). In this configuration, the junction resembles the letter H in a lateral view, and the crossing strands actually perform U turns. The crossing strands represent physical links between the two DNA strands involved. If a RF is restored by HR-mediated repair during mitosis, the resulting HJ usually involves the two sister chromatids of one chromosome (Li and Heyer, 2008). In meiosis, the physical links in the shape of HJs arise because of meiotic crossover between homologous chromosomes. In either case, these links must be resolved to ensure unperturbed cell survival.The importance of resolving the HJs for the survival of cells and organisms is highlighted by the phenotypes described for mutants defective for the known pathways of HJ resolution. One of these pathways is the resolution by canonical HJ resolvases, enzymes that cleave the two opposing strands of a HJ in perfectly symmetric positions relative to the junction point, which results in readily ligatable nicked duplex (nD) products (Svendsen and Harper, 2010). This property distinguishes the canonical HJ resolvases from the noncanonical resolvases (see below).The main resolvase of Escherichia coli is radiation and UV sensitive C (RuvC), which is part of the E. coli resolvasome (RuvABC complex; Otsuji et al., 1974; Sharples et al., 1990, 1999). In this complex, a HJ is sandwiched between two RuvA tetramers (Panyutin and Hsieh, 1994). Two RuvB complexes form ATP-dependent motors of branch migration, with two opposing helical arms of the junction threaded through their central openings. For the resolution of the HJ, one RuvA tetramer is replaced by a RuvC homodimer. This homodimer positions two active sites at the center of the junction that are poised to cleave the junction point if a preferred consensus sequence of the form 5′-(A/T)TT^↓(G/C)-3′ is encountered. The requirement for this correct sequence is quite strict; even a single base change can lead to a drastic reduction of the cleavage efficiency (Shah et al., 1994). Isolated EcRuvC is also active in vitro and binds only HJ structures with high specificity. This binding is independent of the sequence context, but the cleavage depends on the specific sequence (Iwasaki et al., 1991; Benson and West, 1994; Dunderdale et al., 1994). The exact cleavage position has been determined to be either one nucleotide 3′ or 5′ from the junction or at the junction point (Bennett and West, 1996; Shida et al., 1996; Osman et al., 2009). The well-characterized EcRuvC is often referred to as a paradigm of canonical HJ resolution.Eukaryotes have evolved a more complex interplay of different HJ resolution pathways (Schwartz and Heyer, 2011; Zakharyevich et al., 2012). A defined complex, consisting of a recombination deficiency Q (RecQ) helicase (AtRECQ4A in Arabidopsis [Arabidopsis thaliana], Bloom syndrome protein in human, and Slow growth suppression1 (Sgs1) in yeast [Saccharomyces cerevisiae]), a type IA topoisomerase (DNA topoisomerase 3-alpha [TOP3A] in Arabidopsis, HsTOPOIIIα in human, and ScTop3 in yeast), and the structural protein RecQ-mediated genome instability1 (AtRMI1 in Arabidopsis, HsRMI1 in human, and ScRmi1 in yeast; RTR complex), mediates the so-called dissolution pathway. The crossing points of a double HJ are brought together by branch migration catalyzed by the helicase followed by decatenation catalyzed by the topoisomerase (Wu and Hickson, 2003; Hartung et al., 2007a, 2008; Mankouri and Hickson, 2007; Yang et al., 2010). In addition to the catalytic activities, a functional RTR complex also requires structural functions based on protein-protein interactions, for which RMI1 plays an essential role (Mullen et al., 2005; Chen and Brill, 2007; Bonnet et al., 2013; Schröpfer et al., 2014). Dissolution leads to noncross-over products and therefore, is a major mechanism in somatic yeast cells (Gangloff et al., 1994; Ira et al., 2003; Matos et al., 2011). In Arabidopsis, the loss of RTR component function leads to elevated rates of HR as well as sensitivity to UV light and methylmethane sulfonate (MMS; Bagherieh-Najjar et al., 2005; Hartung et al., 2007a; Bonnet et al., 2013). Mutants of AtRMI1 and AtTOP3A exhibit severe and unique meiotic phenotypes (Chelysheva et al., 2008; Hartung et al., 2008). This meiosis I arrest is dependent on HR, but the exact nature of the recombination intermediates that are involved remains unclear (Li et al., 2004; Hartung et al., 2007b; Knoll et al., 2014).Dissolution acts in parallel with a second pathway mediated by the structure-specific endonuclease MMS and UV-sensitive protein81 (MUS81) as shown by the fact that the additional mutation of ScSgs1/AtRECQ4A leads to synthetic lethality (Mullen et al., 2001; Hartung et al., 2006; Mannuss et al., 2010). Single mutants of MUS81 in yeast, human, Drosophila melanogaster, and Arabidopsis are sensitive to DNA-damaging agents that perturb RFs and show reduced HR after induction of double-strand breaks (Boddy et al., 2001; Hanada et al., 2006; Hartung et al., 2006). The MUS81 homologs form heterodimers with the noncatalytic subunit essential meiotic endonuclease1 (EME1; ScMms4 in S. cerevisiae). SpMus81-Eme1 was, to our knowledge, the first nuclear endonuclease reported to be capable of resolving HJs (Boddy et al., 2001). The Arabidopsis complexes can be formed with the two different subunits: AtEME1A or AtEME1B (Geuting et al., 2009). AtMUS81-EME1A/B, like the fission yeast ortholog, preferentially cleaves nicked Holliday junctions (nHJs) and 3′-flaps but also shows weaker activity on intact HJs in vitro (Boddy et al., 2001; Osman et al., 2003; Geuting et al., 2009; Schwartz and Heyer, 2011). MUS81 homologs are key players in meiotic cross-over generation (Osman et al., 2003; Berchowitz et al., 2007; Higgins et al., 2008). Although cross-over formation is solely dependent on SpMus81 in fission yeast, this function was shown to be shared with ScYen1 in budding yeast (Osman et al., 2003; Blanco et al., 2010; Ho et al., 2010; Tay and Wu, 2010). Tightly regulated by cell division cycle5-dependent hyperphosphorylation at the end of prophase I, the main activity of ScMus81-Mms4 is timed to coordinate with the formation of chiasmata and HJs that link the homologous chromosomes. This role in meiosis I is shown by the failure of chromosome segregation at the end of meiosis I in ScMus81 mutants (Matos et al., 2011). Interestingly, the chromosomes could be segregated at the end of meiosis II because of the presence of ScYen1. In contrast to canonical HJ resolvases, the hallmark of the MUS81-EME1 cleavage mechanism is the asymmetry of the second incision relative to either a first incision or a preexisting nick. This difference classifies MUS81-EME1 as a noncanonical resolvase. Its products need additional processing by gap-filling or flap-cleaving enzymes to allow religation (Boddy et al., 2001; Geuting et al., 2009).In very recent studies, HsMUS81-EME1 was found to constitute an essential canonical HJ resolvase with HsSLX1-SLX4 (SLX for synthetic lethal of unknown function), in which a first incision is made by HsSLX1-SLX4 followed by the enhanced action of the HsMUS81-EME1 subunits on the resulting nHJ (Garner et al., 2013; Wyatt et al., 2013). HsSLX1-SLX4 had previously been described as a canonical resolvase, albeit producing only a low level of symmetrically cut ligatable products (Fekairi et al., 2009).In addition to the mechanisms described above, an activity resembling that of EcRuvC had long been known to be present in mammalian cell-free extracts. In 2008, the group of Steven C. West succeeded in identifying, to their knowledge, the first nuclear proteins analogous to the EcRuvC paradigm: ScYen1 and Homo sapiens XPG-like endonuclease1 (HsGEN1; Ip et al., 2008). These proteins are members of the large and well-characterized Rad2/XPG family of nucleases. The Rad2/XPG family consists of the Xeroderma pigmentosum group G-complementing protein (XPG) endonucleases of the nucleotide excision repair (class I), the flap endonuclease1 (FEN1) replication-associated flap endonucleases (class II), the exodeoxyribonuclease1 (EXO1) exonucleases of recombination and repair (class III), and class IV (containing the [putative] eukaryotic HJ resolvases). This last class was introduced after the identification of the rice (Oryza sativa) single-strand DNA endonuclease1 (OsSEND-1) based on sequence homology. The class IV members show a domain composition homologous to FEN1 and EXO1, with no spacer region between their N-terminal XPG (XPG-N) and internal XPG (XPG-I) domains, whereas the primary structure of these domains is more similar to the sequence of the nuclease domain of XPG (Furukawa et al., 2003).Although all Rad2/XPG homologs share a common cleavage mechanism as observed for the typical 5′-flap substrate (Tsutakawa et al., 2011; Tsutakawa and Tainer, 2012), the striking evolutionary difference between classes I, II, and III on the one hand and the HJ resolvases (class IV) on the other hand is the ability of class IV members to form homodimers in vitro at their preferred substrate, the HJs (Rass et al., 2010). The homodimer configuration ensures the presence of two active sites positioned on the opposing strands of the HJ, which is necessary for resolution. The mode of eukaryotic HJ resolution is largely similar to the bacterial paradigm: (1) cleavage occurs one nucleotide in the 3′ direction of a static junction point (equivalent to the main cleavage site on 5′-flaps), (2) the incisions occur with almost perfect point symmetry, (3) the incisions result in readily ligatable nDs, and (4) certain sites within a migratable HJ core are preferred, providing evidence for a (yet to be determined) sequence specificity (Ip et al., 2008; Bailly et al., 2010; Rass et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2012).In the absence of MUS81-EME1/Mms4, the proteins HsGEN1, ScYen1, and CeGEN-1 have been shown to play a role in response to replication-associated perturbations, such as MMS- and UV-induced DNA damage (Bailly et al., 2010; Blanco et al., 2010; Tay and Wu, 2010; Gao et al., 2012; Muñoz-Galván et al., 2012). It is also likely that these proteins provide a backup mechanism in mitosis and meiosis, ensuring proper chromosome segregation after a failure of other mechanisms, including MUS81-EME1/Mms4 (Blanco et al., 2010; Matos et al., 2011).Although canonical HJ resolvases in animals and fungi are a current topic of great interest, very little is known about these proteins in plants. In rice, two members of the Rad2/XPG class IV have been described: OsSEND-1 (the founding member) and OsGEN-like (OsGEN-L). OsSEND-1 was shown to digest single-stranded circular DNA, and its expression is induced on MMS-induced genotoxic stress, whereas OsGEN-L is implicated in late spore development (Furukawa et al., 2003; Moritoh et al., 2005). Both studies (Furukawa et al., 2003; Moritoh et al., 2005) proposed putative homologs in other plants, and the gene locus At1g01880 of Arabidopsis, coding for the protein AtGEN1, is considered the ortholog of HsGEN1 and ScYen1 (Ip et al., 2008). However, currently, only OsGEN-L has been further investigated and described to possess in vitro properties similar to both Rad2/XPG nucleases and EcRuvC. This protein shows a well-defined 5′-flap activity as well as a poorly characterized ability, similar to that of EcRuvC, to resolve mobile HJs (Yang et al., 2012).Thus, of two members of Rad2/XPG class IV of plants, only one member has so far been analyzed with respect to a possible HJ resolvase activity. However, Arabidopsis expression data show that both proteins are expressed in plants and do not reveal marked differences (Laubinger et al., 2008). In this study, the goal was, therefore, to characterize the in vitro activities of not only AtGEN1 but also, AtSEND1, focusing on the idea that Arabidopsis and (seed) plants in general might encode not one but actually two HJ resolvases with functional homology to EcRuvC.